Lien vers la décision
[17] This Court discussed the approach to an appeal from an order staying proceedings under s 11(b) in R v Koruz (1992), 1992 ABCA 144 (CanLII), 125 AR 161 (CA) at para 31. Section 676(1)(c) of the Criminal Code permits the Crown to appeal against an order that stays proceedings on an indictment, without limiting that right to appeal to questions of law alone. In any event, whether a trial judge has properly concluded on the facts of a case that s 11(b) has been infringed is a question of law. As a general rule, an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s finding on this issue in the absence of a “proven error”, described as “error as to the applicable principles of rules of law governing the granting of a stay or error as to the proper weight to be given to one or more of the relevant factors so as to result in the finding of the trial judge being “unreasonable” in all the circumstances of the case.”: Koruz at para 31.
[18] This Court recently described the standard of review somewhat differently, citing the Ontario Court of Appeal’s statement that “[t]he characterization of periods of delay, and the ultimate decision concerning the reasonableness of a period of delay, is reviewable on a standard of correctness”: R v C.D., 2014 ABCA 333 (CanLII), citing R v Konstantakos, 2014 ONCA 21 (CanLII) at para 5. On either approach, there were clear errors in the s 11(b) analysis in this case.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire